Monday, July 01, 2013

What We're Reading: Celebrating American Independence

With the approach of the 4th of July, it is timely to note three recently published books on the American Revolution.All three titles
center on events in the American colonies in the two years leading up to the
Declaration of Independence and, in the case of Ellis’s book, the immediate
aftermath as well.The subject of how
the consensus for independence was formed, the issues, politics and incipient
military actions, are understandably the major focus of attempts to understand
the origin and meaning of the American Revolution. These were times of heady excitement, when events seemed to spin out of anyone’s ability to shape or control, when
actions and their consequences defied prescience.What happened at this time was formative of
the political and military framework that remained in place for the duration of
the war.Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor: The Forging of American Independence1774-1776, by Richard R. Beeman, is
the book that takes the widest view, largely focused on the building of a
national consensus through the debates carried on in the Continental Congress, and the developing role of that body in managing the revolutionary
struggle.Nathaniel Philbrick’s Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege,A Revolution examines the events that occurred in the cradle of the revolt, Massachusetts, in
the year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, in particular
the engagements between American militia and British regulars at Lexington and
Concord and a few months later at Bunker Hill in Boston. (Note: A review of this book
will be forthcoming here on the blog.)

Of these three books, Revolutionary
Summer has the narrowest time frame.It is concerned mostly with the dynamic between the impending arrival
of a large British armyin New York (and
the subsequent battle for New York) and the political developments just prior
to the Declaration of Independence and in its aftermath.Ellis argues that the historic moment of the
American Revolution occurred in the summer of
1776, a period which he broadly defines as from May to October of that
year.Relative to the other two new
books, his book is short.His major
themes are presented tersely, almost epigrammatically, but the major
achievement of Revolutionary Summer is that they are woven into an integrated picture of
events that will leave readers with an understanding of the period that is new
and perhaps provocative. Ellis writes, “My
contention in the pages that follow is that the political and military
experiences were two sides of a single story, which are incomprehensible unless
told together.”And yet it seems one of the ironies of the
military and political dynamic described in Revolutionary
Summer that the major military engagement of the period--the rather
feckless attempt of the Continental Army to defend New York from a British
invasion--had little effect on the resolve for independence that had formed in
the colonies and had been formally expressed in the Declaration of Independence
only a month before.After removing
troops from a besieged Boston the previous year, the plan that the British
ministry had formed was to occupy the substantially loyalist city of New York
and to have troops march north through the Hudson Valley.They were to meet up with British troops
headed south from Canada.The strategy
was designed to cut off the virulently rebellious New England from the rest of
the colonies.Knowledge of the British
fleet headed towards New York, and especially the fact that it contained a sizable
number of German mercenary troops along with the contingent of British
regulars, had been perhaps the decisive factor in finally pushing more moderate
delegates at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia (those still hoping for
reconciliation with Great Britain) into crossing the Rubicon and declaring for American independence.The fleet descending
upon New York also removed the last illusions of moderate colonists who had put
hope in the fiction that it was an obtuse and hostile Parliament and British
Ministry that were their enemies and not their sovereign, George III.Oddly, however, the threat had more impact
politically than militarily.The
colonies were fearful of creating a large standing army and were determined to
rely on local state militias to supplement Washington’s rather poorly endowed
Continental Army.Washington came to
feel that the need for a more substantial army, while militarily necessary, was
politically impossible.And when defeat
came for the Americans in New York, a number of things limited the political
impact of that event.For one thing,
colonial newspapers either didn’t report the event or misrepresented it as an
American victory, so there was not widespread public knowledge of what had actually
happened.The delegates at the
Continental Congress in Philadelphia, however, had better information sources
and knew what had transpired, and yet there had developed there a sense of
optimism, the sense that American independence was a matter of destiny.It was an irrational conviction that seemed
impervious to the facts of the disaster.The feeling among many delegates was that once a determination had been
made to seek independence, it was going to happen, if not sooner, then
later.The rebellious population of the
colonies was too large, the landmass too extensive, and the distance too great
for Britain to triumph in the end.And
then of course there was the not easily dismissed consideration that if the
rebellion was suppressed and the demand for independence was recanted, those who
had lead the rebellion stood a good chance of being hung.

Ellis argues that
during this period the strategic framework for the entire conflict was set,
that the Revolutionary War became a conflict the British could not win for
political reasons, and that the Americans, because of their fear of creating a strong
central authority and a large standing army, could not win for military reasons.
The most important and interesting history in Revolutionary Summer is Ellis’s account of the battle for New
York.The British sent forces under the
command of General William Howe and his brother, Admiral Richard Howe.The strategic decisions they made in New York
may well have decided the fate of the Continental Army and the American
Revolution.The Howe brothers hoped that
the British show of force would help change revolutionary zeal in the colonies
and influence enough patriots and loyalists so that the conflict could be ended
with a negotiated settlement, one that in effect rescinded the Declaration of
Independence, the fait accompli they
faced upon landing in New York.That
hope and desire, along with William Howe’s concern about taking heavy
casualties among the British regulars (which had happened to him at Bunker Hill
the previous year) caused the Howes to be less aggressive against
the Continental Army, a relatively meager force they could have bottled up and
destroyed on either Long Island or, after its near-miraculous escape from Long
Island, on Manhattan. Their motivations and actions in not pressing their
advantage have been second-guessed by historians ever since.

Ellis’s account of the patriot’s side of the conflict and
the actions of George Washington is also illuminating.The decision to try to defend New York, which( prior to the British landing) experienced patriot military officers judged to be
indefensible against the combined British navy and ground forces, was an
ill-advised decision, and was based on what seemed a foolhardy optimism rather
than a realistic appraisal of the situation.And once there, Washington’s sense of honor constrained him:He felt he was obliged
to conduct a direct and aggressive confrontation with the British forces, and when
that failed he had to be given public cover by others on his staff before he
would agree to a retreat. Washington
appears here as fastidious, overly concerned with his own sense of honor,
and willing to risk the Continental Army and the whole “Cause” itself for its
sake.Only later would he come to
understand the kind of war he needed to wage, and it seems either providential or
lucky that he was given the chance, after his early actions, to learn that
lesson. This is one of the refreshing
and demythologizing views Ellis gives us in Revolutionary
Summer.Another, which is timely as
we approach our annual July 4th celebration, is Ellis’s history of
the writing of the Declaration of Independence.He cautions, “But it is important to recognize that the golden haze that
eventually enveloped the Declaration had not yet formed.Its subsequent significance was lost on all
the participants, including Jefferson himself.”The issue of independence was decided by the votes on resolutions by the
Continental Congress, and once a consensus had been formed the writing of a public
statement was largely perceived as a matter of propaganda for foreign
consumption and a rallying cry to the colonies.“What became the great creative moment was perceived by all concerned as
a minor administrative chore.”Those
appointed to the committee to draft such a statement left the task mostly to
one member, Thomas Jefferson.It is
interesting that the editing and revisions that the Continental Congress made
to Jefferson’s text, changes he bitterly resented, were all focused on the
charges made in the Declaration against the Parliament and George III.The evocative opening words of the
Declaration, which expressed a foundation of equality in natural law, and which have had
so much impact on the expansion of rights and liberties in our national
history, passed unnoticed and without revision. The implications of those subtle and scarcely
pondered opening paragraphs would be the great legacy of that revolutionary
summer.